of slopes which is the whole reason for that criteria into the least steepest of slopes and
we've to the extent we could move in those less steep slopes we could move the property forward
closer to the front property line we have keep in mind that even though the zoning code speaks
about front setback I believe that it's normally intended to keep the fronts of the properties in
line with each other we have to the one side of us if you look at the property to the left
that is a side of the building that is has that setback and I had some back and forth with L&I
about that and um they believe that that criteria still uh meets or is required for us to meet that
setback of the building located at the corner of wildly and um and our property um because of it's
technically a front um under 14701 and then obviously up the hill you have no you have nobody
directly next to us technically up the hill the building that's further up the hill is set back
further back, but LNI has defined or has looked at that and not considered that in their opinion
to establish that setback. But for those reasons, we feel that it's the minimum variance, both in
terms of the setback, in terms of the steep slopes, and in terms of the parking. Because again,
all the cars, all the properties across the street from us all have off-street parking.
263 all has off-street parking it's a steep hill to walk up from the next cross street
we know parking is difficult to find on-street parking we are not taking away any on-street
parking with the parking that we've requested we do we believe that it's uh again we believe
that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code
we it clearly won't substantially increase congestion because cars aren't going to be
driving around looking for on-street parking and we don't again we don't believe it's going to
impact the light and air to the properties abutting us or to the conforming properties which 263 is
not and we also believe that it satisfies the remaining criteria regarding transportation
what are sewer school park or other public facilities and in that for those reasons we
believe that the variances that we work very hard to minimize one of which we've eliminated
with the relocation of the of the structure um warrants the granting of the required variances
in this case after a very long time thank you council would you want to summarize where you
where you stand i mean i basically what yeah if i may i just want to respond to some of the comments
that also made sure um so what um i respect what council's doing but this application is about
251 Ripka Street. It's not about 263 Hermitage. And with respect, the board was just showing a very selective view. I'm trying to share my screen very quickly.
I'll stop sharing.
Okay, thank you. It says someone else is sharing. Let me see if I can do this. Let me see if I can get here is a this is from
hopefully everyone can see this it'll be up here yeah this is from Mr. Orfiniti's packet this is
showing 263 Hermitage on the right those uh seven or eight buildings yeah he said that uh 263
Hermitage blocks the view of neighbors from the street the show view he showed you might look that
way but as you can see from this maybe one house the first one that is closest to Hermitage Street
actually a block may be up against the neighbor but the other seven or eight units are not
so i just wanted to respond to that because i think that the board was given a a different
impression of of that situation so um just to sort of to summarize very quickly this is one
of those cases where it's like putting a square peg in in a round hole um what we've heard in the
three hearings now that the board has is heard from on this matter uh the steep slope is not the
minimum relief requested uh admittedly from the feasibility study it is the cheapest way to do
this work um to do this project but the project could be built and the feasibility study says that
right up against the setback which is exactly what is done in the houses that are right now forget
about across the street the houses right next to this property are up against the setback
as are dozens if not hundreds of other properties in Maniunk in the in the immediate
as are dozens, if not hundreds, of other properties in Maniunk in the immediate vicinity.
So the variance requested for the setback is not the minimum relief required to do this project.
It's a matter of saving money or being a cheaper cost.
In terms of the parking, as I've said before, there are hundreds, if not thousands,
of properties in maniunk that have no parking including the properties immediately next to this
site again not across the street but the properties immediately going to the corner there are two or
three of them to the corner and around the block going all the way have no parking as many others
parking is not a requirement in maniunk and in this zoning district so there is no grounds for
a variance for parking when it's not that way for you know there's no code requirement and
certainly there's no uh there's no parking for many other properties um in maniung so um you
know that really summarizes i the points i would would leave for the board um this project would
impinge as we just heard on light and air for 263 hermitage um it is not the minimum relief
necessary on at least two of the variance requests so um on behalf of the two uh hermitage place
owners association i would ask that the board consider um denying the variance requests for
this project i'm just before i finish just to want to remind i don't know there could be some
Opponents who from the public who may be on that I don't represent, but I just wanted to remind the board that they hadn't had an opportunity to speak.
Okay. Yeah, we'll get to that. Okay. Yeah. The only thing I was gonna say is I have a photograph that refutes Mr. Grimes statement about blocking the buildings. You can look at that. I understand you have that. Okay. So question questions from the board.
I have a question. So the primary reason for the setback is to provide parking for the two single family homes. No, it's just even even without. So there's so it works in both. It works in two directions. And I went back and listened to Mr. Bats's testimony. So on the one side, so to move it. So, first of all, I don't, not sure how to say, bring it, bring it in the front of the property is the steepest of slopes. There is almost 90%. So.
So clearly by moving it out of that we're minimizing that variance. The problem is, is that to put the building even and Mr Dollar testified to this is that to stick the building at the front, even if that's not parking just to come in off the ground floor and walk into the building unless you're going to
going to come up a ladder or come up crazy steps up to get to the upper second floor.
You're going to have to dig into that building. What we're doing is we're pushing it back and
we're floating it in a way. And we've moved it forward. You know, we've moved it through
the beginning of the project. We've been, I think, 15 feet considerably forward. But so whether
that's just to get into the building or whether it's for parking, you're going to have to excavate
that. The other problem is, is what that does is, and Mr. Dollar testified to this, you have the
ground floor let's say that's even you're walking in at the cellar level that's below grade but that
even puts the next living level the the main living level let's say the common area partially
below grade as well so you're digging out just to get your even your living space you're digging
all that out to get there that's on the one side so you have all that additional cost that you
don't have and it was in the appraisals in the evaluation to to between building the building
itself the other issue you have is that without the parking mr bats testified this so you have
the price going up and then you have the sales price coming down because now you don't have the
parking you don't have at least the parking for the upper hill project or building because of the
the grade and where and where the not only just the grade but where the lot the street ends
and mr dollar said we don't even we've been trying to find out i mean you'd have to build
this crazy supporting like to hold the hill back to dig the hill out to extend to extend the street
past our you know past the full length of our property but then we even if we're left with the
one so we lose one completely or two spaces because we're mr dollar said stacked and we're
not stacking on top it's what we call shotgun um back tail to tail to toe or tail to front but um
But you lose the one, and then you lose one, possibly two, because it depends how deep you want to go.
Like, again, to go deeper, you now need to dig out more bedrock if you're going to still have the one stack, whereas if you're just going to do the one, you're going to have less sale.
So more cost, less resale, less marketability also because it's a house without parking versus a house that has parking that isn't taking away any on-street parking.
without parking versus a house that has parking that isn't taking away any on-street parking.
So between those two, and that's where we land up seeing like the loss for the project
and the financial and physical difficulty. It's also going to disturb the neighbors a heck of a
lot more. You got to blast and you got to dig out all that bedrock. So during that process too,
it's going to be a lot more difficult for everybody to create a project or create the
houses at the front versus the houses at the back. If I may, just to remind the board, the houses
immediately next to this property going down to the cross street are right up at the setback.
They don't have the topography. The topography may be different, but again, what we're hearing,
And look, I'm looking at page 17 of the feasibility study. This is a financial analysis you're hearing. It is not a hardship analysis. We are taking the developer's word for what he thinks he could sell the property for.
I don't have an expert to counter it, but he could sell it. It would be either at less profit or even at a loss. But respectfully, I don't know that his ability to make a profit should be the main determiner for whether you grant a variance, particularly given the other factors we've discussed with this property, and also because the immediate houses next door comply with the zoning code, and they're built right up against the setback.
with no setback other questions questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions
or comments from the audience and i think what i'll do is before i go to the virtual audience
i'll go here first john are you going to testify yeah come on why don't we um do you want me to
move yeah why don't you give john a seat i mean that way
good morning sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer uh yeah it's john
hunter h-u-n-t-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr hunter just make sure the the mic's pretty close to you that's all right i always yeah yeah
yeah yeah right right please proceed sir thank you um uh just to introduce myself i am the zoning
chair for many neighborhood council um and uh have been involved in the discussions on this project
over the last five plus years now um normally i don't bring notes i have a lot of uh comments to
make on mr uh often these testimony we you have our mnc's letter from going back yeah we do with
the points which have been reviewed but in addition in the two and a half hours of testimony from mr
orphanages there's a lot of things that we want to address and so i go ahead i'm sorry i'm testing
your patience and going no you're not you're done we're a little we're i don't want to say this too
loud but we're a little ahead of schedule a little little ahead of schedule we we we probably want
to stay at that point but go ahead i may i may never hear that again on a case that i'm involved
in you were done testifying that's what i said go ahead right ahead because i came in on this
the case had already started right um let's go back a little bit um
when this case was presented uh to mnc as the coordinating rco there was a different attorney
as mr orphaned as i said leon malvahill and it was a slightly different scheme uh it's gone
through some modifications we were familiar with the site because of the previous case which has
just been unearthed again and referred to which was 263 hermitage which we
opposed and we opposed it not as mr. Orphanidis said in his January
testimony about it being similar it was for very different reasons that property
had a twin house existing house a fine house at the property which could have
been retained you have to be demolished it was and then there was a row houses
proposed behind it because it took up so much of the site it also required um stormwater management
which required required a rain garden at the front of the site so it was a very alien proposal to the
surroundings and those were the primary reasons that we opposed it at the hearing your predecessor
chair bongan um hinted at i'll put it as weakly as that that there could be a compromise uh
reducing the number of houses that would be extended into the site and the developer jumped
at that suggestion and reduced the number of houses to eight from nine so there was a
space at the back of the site plus the rear setback that was left and you can see that from
space at the back of the site plus the rear yard setback that was left and you can see that
the aerial photographs at the hearing the developer also made assertions which i understand he
subsequently made to the purchases of the houses that he owned the site below 263 which is 251
and that it wouldn't be developed and um
We lost that appeal, as obviously the houses were built. And then we were surprised when we were informed that there was a new developer for the site, it would be developed.
And knowing just how difficult that site is, we were very surprised.
The site, as has been explained, hasn't been developed as far as we can see, ever.
But it's surrounded by different vintages of developments, particularly down on Wild Street and the ones on Perpichette Street, say, 1900 in rough numbers.
The ones on Ripka Street in the 1960s, and that's probably when the extension of Ripka Street came up, Ripka Street up the hill.
And it stopped immediately as soon as it could where the houses were being developed.
And then there was 263 that was developed.
And during that period, clearly, and it's not unusual, there was a lot of potential for dumping, erosion, and whatever else on that site.
So it didn't really surprise us that there was so much vegetation and fill at the entrance to the site, which is characterized, understandably, as steep slopes.
But what we found in the past with other such developments, it is filled, and it is a concern for erosion.
But it isn't all necessarily rock. So when we were discussing the scheme with Mr. Mulvihill and looking at alternatives, our immediate response was, why don't you put the building, whatever you're building, where the zoning code tells you to with zero setback for an RSA5.
Put it at the front of the site where you minimize the disturbance for the whole site. And also it's likely that a lot of the thing that you're, you know, looking at is fill which can be easily excavated and not necessarily all rock.
In addition to that, at that time, there was a high refusal. So there was this building which was set, two buildings, two houses, set 50 feet back from the road and spanning from side to side of the property lines, which meant that one of the houses, the side of the houses, which inevitably is blank, extended up, according to the refusal and the way it was calculated, 45 feet above grade, plus a 10 foot
on top of that. And that side of that building was 10 feet away from these new houses costing three quarters of a million dollars, which were looking directly at that property.
And we consider that to be the least favorable solution and asked them to look at other solutions, including the opportunities of not only looking at the front of the site, but also recognizing that at the front of the site,
Because that one house had been omitted during the ZBA hearing, plus the rear yard setback, there was an opportunity not to block any of the houses.
So we weren't against building something, but we were certainly appalled at what was proposed.
I think it's also interesting to look at, and again, I don't know what you make of it, but the developer who developed 263 was a smart developer. He did quite a lot of local developments. He knew the circumstances of Manianka and steep slopes and rock formations, and he chose to sell the property that he owned for 251 Roca.
He not only sold it, he sold it for $30,000. And we'll talk about later Mr. Batts' testimony as a real estate appraiser. Mr. Batts, in his report, values the property at $200,000, two $100,000 lots.
So our immediate response was whatever you do, first of all, you've got a lot of latitude of money that you have to spend.
And secondly, caveat emptor. If you're going to build this, go into it with eyes wide open and don't bleed hardship for financial stress immediately.
FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE DON'T KNOW WHY, OUR PUBLIC MEETING, AS MR OFANITES HAS SHOWN, OPPOSED THE SCHEME, AS DID BRIDGE PARK.
as shown, opposed the scheme, as did Bridge Park. And it went quiet. I think it was just
generally continued, and the scheme was continued. It's been allowed to for all this time. Eventually,
we were contacted by Mr. Orphanides. Mr. Orphanides we've dealt with before on various other projects.
He said he introduced himself. He's been taking over the project and would like to talk to
about the scheme, and we were happy to do that. So we gave him our viewpoint, which
I'm sure was totally different from Alex Duller's viewpoint, who's the architect.
And we suggested that, you know, that there was an alternative scheme. And what Mr. Ofanidis
did, and I think he will confirm, is he said that he wanted to gain more information about
of the site to understand what the constraints were. The building, the original scheme went
forward to the site. It drove a drive valve down the center of the site and had two staircases
at the side. This really monumental sort of development of the site. It completely excavated
out the steep slopes at the front of the site, which Mr. Orphanides is so concerned about
in this testimony. And so what Mr. Orfinides did was to take recommendations to the client
to have a geotechnical survey, which is normal but you don't necessarily do it at zoning level,
you do it at building permit. And also to really investigate where the front of the site was,
what the width of the site was, one of the constraints which we thought was wise.
That then came – produced yet another delay that we heard nothing for a long time, and
then eventually it came back with a solid proposal for a review by our zoning committee
and then the public committee, which is the scheme that's before you now.
And what that scheme did was, as you've seen, move – develop only once half of the site,
the 22 feet to the south, downhill, which seemed reasonable.
But what I think really that needs to be brought to bear an understanding about this site is whatever happens on this site, the steep slopes at the front of the site will have to be excavated, certainly for the whole of that 22 feet.
not only down to sidewalk level, but below that by at least three feet for foundation level and for utilities.
Everybody knows that the utilities serving these two buildings are three feet down in the middle,
at least three feet down in the middle of Ripka Street.
And they, to make a connection, they will come across, they will enter the site across the front boundary at a lower level.
So you have two sewer lines, you have two water lines, you have two sprinkler lines, you have two gas lines. You might have the electricity underground for aesthetic reasons. All of those utilities are excavated in a trench.
And that trench, if the building were built at the front of the site, it would be inside the building as soon as it crossed that boundary.
If you do what is proposed, which is to provide utilities 35 feet down the site, you have to cut into the site for that 35 feet to a depth of three feet below wherever the proposed driveway is.
and that has never been really understood and and uh clarified i've made in this proposal
you are taking out the steep slopes whatever you're doing now um
rachel uh if i get her name right because i was bad with it to d-domenicus d-domenicus yes
rachel d-domenicus did you know a very thorough uh presentation and what she did was she really
She reiterated what's in the zoning code, which is great, and she also really stated what was required by the Planning Commission to review the erosion and stormwater control systems for the site.
But also, under Ms. Dorofedini's sort of questioning, she implied that the other half of the site, the site to the north, at the front of the boundary, would not be disturbed.
It would be just contained conveniently and neatly by a retaining wall. And that also is not the correct situation, because again, for a retaining wall, the retaining wall has to extend down to foundation level. It has to be below frost line. And in order to build a retaining structure, that form a rectangle, you pretty much have to excavate down, form the foundations, build a wall.
you pretty much have to excavate down, form the foundations, build a wall, and then backfill behind it so it's an active retaining wall in the long term.
So considering the whole of the site development, pretty much most of that site at the front of the site will need significant excavation below the sidewalk level.
And there isn't even a sidewalk there at the moment, but there will need to be.
So, I think that puts a different understanding on why we were so committed to whatever the proposal was, it should be at the front of the site and not to the rear of the site.
I also think that what we should talk about, if I just look at my notes for a second because there's quite a lot to go through.
I want to talk about Mr. Batts' testimony, which confused me very much as Mr. Grimes has said, we hadn't seen that report the last time it was produced.
We hadn't seen Rachel's report either. After five years, they were produced at the very last minute.
And Mr. Batts, who is his company's Rittenhouse, David, can you remind me?